Eliminate the Carry Ban at U.S. Post Offices

Donald Trump is the current front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Despite previous support for an assault weapons ban, Mr. Trump has adopted an irreproachable Second Amendment platform. (His son and surrogate, Donald Trump Jr., is pro-2A through-and-through.) Trump’s only credible rival, Senator Ted Cruz, has an unblemished record for supporting the Second Amendment, including filing an amicus brief on the part of 31 states in the Heller decision. That’s no coincidence . . .

So what should President Cruz or President Trump do for gun rights if and when they’re elected? Amongst other things, they should immediately eliminate the ban on arms (including firearms) in the public areas of the post office.

The first post office gun ban dates back to the 1920’s, when Uncle Sam prohibited the shipment of pistols through the postal service. The point: force pistols to travel through local retailers, where local controls could keep them out of the hands of the “undesirables”(i.e. immigrants). Americans who bought a Federal Firearms License ($1) could beat the ban. (Licensed gun dealers can still send pistols through the U.S. mail – to other licensed gun dealers.)

The second part of the Post Office ban was born from internal regulations. Unless an employee was carrying a gun for hunting or other lawful purposes, they couldn’t bring a gun into a post office. A general gun ban for federal employees — or anyone else — in federal buildings completed the ban. It is now applied to everyone and every weapon, except for those expressly allowed (e.g. law enforcement).

In 2013, the Post Office gun ban was challenged in federal court. It was partly struck down, then upheld by the 10th Circuit Court. In 2014, Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz tried and failed to eliminate the ban the through legislation.

A President Cruz or Trump could eliminate the ban by executive order. They could announce an executive finding that the public areas of Post Offices do not constitute “sensitive parts” of government buildings where the government has a “compelling interest” to override Americans’ Second Amendment protections.

The current ban on legal carry in a United State Post Office makes no sense. It ensnares otherwise law-abiding citizens, increases the possibility of gun theft from post office parking lots and to makes life more dangerous for people exercising their Second Amendment rights.

102 Responses to Eliminate the Carry Ban at U.S. Post Offices

I will freely admit that while I don’t need to visit the Post Office very often, I violate this law every time I do. Carrying IWB under a tucked shirt, divesting myself of my firearm to walk in and send a package is not really a reasonable option.

There’s a post office outlet in a hardware store about 3 blocks from my house. It’s only good for picking up stamps and mailing packages. I’m guessing I’m not breaking any laws. Unless I jump over the counter I’m in the hardware store.

I open carried into a gas station once, not realizing they had a post office next to a fast food place inside a small gas station. I did my thing and walked back out, the end of the world didn’t happen, my pistol remained holstered and I didn’t suddenly go postal. I’m not sure exactly how the federal law works, but I avoid that gas station now.

I have not carried on Post Office property including dropping off mail in the drop box.
I have a disabled wife and teenage son that I support and choose not to risk going to prison for being armed while driving by to drop of mail.

Some will say, concealed is concealed – how would anyone know. Well, all somebody has to do is set up a roadblock immediately after you leave the parking lot. Boom. It may not be legal, but when has that ever stopped the government from doing something.

And as far as ADMITTING to doing so on an online forum like this, whether you think you’re anonymously posting or not, if someone wants to find out who you are – they will.

But remember, these folks are not under oath, there is zero proof that they have disobeyed Dear Leader, there is no actual case, no probable cause, they risk nothing. Despite our government wishing for us all to be terrified of our neighbors and to believe government agents can just lock us away for no reason. Lighten up.

With respect: either of the two scenarios you mention is unlikely enough to justify taking the tiny chance something like you describe will happen.
1. Setting up road blocks which also block parking lot exits isn’t a common occurence – narrowing it to post office parking lots makes it almost impossible to happen.

2. Government monitoring the Web “randomly” at this point is illegal search on a grand scale. And there’s no evidence any federal agency is focusing on gun-oriented sites. To get a concealed carry permit automatically means you’ve been back ground checked (voluntarily) so government “spying” isn’t working to stop real crooks let alone “honest” licensees or gun buyers.

3. Finally- there’s little chance of you getting convicted of a felony – especially when all you have to do is leave the restricted area voluntarily. You’re right only in that many people won’t reveal that they DO carry in most “gun free zones” and they do it every day. It’s better to conclude that more than admit to it actually do it.

I was a good little servant and followed “the law” right up until I had some methed up idiot confront me while I was mailing a package after hours(or before depending on your sleep schedule). Yeah no law in the world would have stopped that guy from attempting whatever he wanted. I look at my right to protect myself, my family, or anybody else way above “the law”. No compromising for me if I can avoid it any more.

I violated the no-sending part; when I went to my local post office (which is just a collection/distribution point, not really a full post office) and went to the postage machine, it asked several questions about the nature of the contents of my package; none of them were if it was a firearm or pistol, so I sent it that way. It was significantly cheaper than any of the other options. I was sending to the manufacturer for warranty, so, otherwise, I was well within the law.

My wife is a rural carrier here in WV and do I visit her at work ? Do I sometimes pick her up after work ?
Do I carry at all times when I’m not asleep ?
Listen , If I delivered mail on her back roads rural route , sometimes to five miles between homes , I would pack a pistol and you bet I’m for mail carriers carrying , and my rights not being infringed no matter where I am .

That’s way too general…and wrong. Though I am as against target-rich-zones in public areas as anyone, private citizens on their private property should be able to make their property “gun-free.” Extending this to private businesses, especially those run as a family business with one location, people should be able to make their own property “gun-free.” No government should have the power over one’s private property to be able to force them to allow something they disagree with, no matter how righteous that government feels their actions may be.

You’re exactly right. The government, nor anyone else, should tell you what you can or cannot do on your property or the property you control. But since the government is “the people”, “the people’s” rights should not be infringed upon in “the people’s” buildings.

If you’re a libertarian you should be against private businesses having the force of law behind their ‘no guns’ signs. The government sticks it’s nose in enough of our daily affairs, if the business doesn’t want guns on their property they have every right to refuse service to those carrying firearms. Just like you have the right to decline participating in a gay wedding.

I agree. Remove the force of law behind all “no guns” signs. I see banning open carry as a dress code issue. Banning concealed carry is like banning “blue underwear.” If you’re not checking, I shouldn’t be committing a misdemeanor by ignoring your “no blue underwear” sign.

If private property owners desire to make their premises so-called “gun free zones” (or “disarmed victims zones”), I have no heartburn with that. It’s their premises, and they can make whatever rules they desire. But, if something goes south, then they should be held partly responsible since they’re the ones that enabled the bad guy to do what he/she/it did.

What about utilities? Just playing out the competing interests. If you don’t like your local 7/11s GF policy, go to Circle K. If you don’t like Chili’s policy, go to Shenanigan’s. But what about your local power, water or cable company? These guys are utilities with local monopolies or near-monopolies.

However, whenever reasonably possible, I do like to insist on accurate and precise language.

To whit; there is realistically no such entity as a ‘Gun Free Zone’. In reality, some places are considered a ‘No Guns Allowed Zone’. But that in no way (as commenters above have demonstrated) insures that they are ‘Gun Free’.

I agree private owners should have the right, however foolhardy, to make their own establishments a ‘No Guns Allowed Zone’ if they choose.

But I think we should be linguistically precise, and force the antis to be also; using their BS lingo tacitly concedes points in arguments.

There is a problem with your position. You are advocating that a property owner can ban self-defense … which means you are advocating that a person does NOT have an unalienable right to life.

This position (that it is okay for a private property owner to ban guests from having firearms) is irrational and inconsistent:
Everyone who claims that a private property owner can ban guests from possessing firearms for self-defense will argue that a property owner cannot ban a person from using their fists or improvised weapons for self-defense which means the property owner is not really banning self-defense. First of all, that is like saying I can handcuff someone’s hands behind their back and I have not prevented them from being able to defend themselves. More importantly, why is it wrong to ban a guest from using fists or improvised weapons for self-defense while it is somehow okay to ban a guest from using firearms?

Which is it? Is self-defense inviolate or not? Do we have an unalienable right to life or not?

Am I to understand that you are saying that I as a property owner have no right to tell you you cannot bring guns onto my property? If if so I beg to differ with you even though I am a gun owner in believe in the 2nd Amendment. My first responsibility is to the defense of myself and my family in my second responsibility is your defense while you are on my property or in my home. if I choose to be the only one that is allowed to have firearms on my property or in my home that is my right and that right overrides you’re right to bring Firearms into my home!
Private property being allowed as a public space may or may not be a different matter but let us not forget that even in the western times there were property owners public spaces such as bars in saloons that did not allow guns to be carried into their premises and they were completely within the law.
if there are any tax dollars where the place is classified as a public domain then I agree Banning firearms would be in question but again if I own the place and I have a right to open and close and shut it down as I so choose then I should also have the right to say no guns. if I said that I better have a means of enforcing that or it is a moot point. such as done checks metal detectors or what have you.
again I emphasize, I hope I’m reading this wrong in my primary concern here is that you would suggest that I have to allow you to come into my home or onto my property at will with your guns that is not the case and will never be the case and I can bet that is defensible in a court of law. if you would feel that unsafe in my home or on my property I would suggest that you and others not come there.

In this particular case, you can exercise said right by refusing to step foot on private property where the owner wants to take away your gun, or to handcuff you, while you’re on it.

Just like the right to free speech doesn’t mean that you can mouth off whatever you want inside my house. If you do, I’ll kick you out (and if you resist, it’ll be trespass); and then you’ll be free to exercise your free speech rights at the entrance to my driveway from there on.

My house, my rules. If I clearly spell them out, and you still come, you have consented to them, including any such surrendering of rights this may entail. Since the choice is entirely yours, none of your rights have been violated – I didn’t take them from you, you willingly surrendered them.

Since nothing forces you to go onto that property, man up and respect the owner’s rights.

This obviously does not apply to government property, which theoretically “belongs” to everyone, in which you are indeed sometimes forced to appear, and of which the custodians are employees of the government directly constrained by your constitutional rights.

From a Freedom of Association perspective, sure, invite only the people of your choosing onto your private property.

From a Property Rights perspective, sure, constrain guest access on your property as long as your constraints do not endanger the lives of your guests.

Let me clarify that last comment:
Is it okay for a property owner to tell guests that they can only use the front door to exit the owner’s home … and enforce that requirement? Sure, as long as that does not endanger the guest’s life. If there is a fire in the home which blocks any possible exit out of the front door, is the guest obligated to burn to death rather than exit through a window or the back door since the owner forbids guests from using any exit other than the front door? After all, the guest was free to not enter the property under the condition that he/she cannot use anything other than the front door, right? Unequivocally wrong.

Property rights end when death is involved. Anything else reflects a fundamental disregard for human life and elevates property status over human life. Our right to life is NOT a function of where we happen to be standing.

I cannot even believe you are comparing the two. You ARE REACHING FOR A REASON TO DO AS YOU PLEASE WHERE YOU PLEASE AND THAT IS JUST ONE REASON THAT FOLKS AGAINST GUNS USE. ARE YOU EVENSERIOUS!?!?
IF you were to know where I live and attempt to force your perceived right to bring a gun to my home without being invited to then I would exercise my RIGHT to perceive you as a threat. PERIOD.
AGAIN.. IF YOU ARE SRRIOUS THEN YOU NEED SOME RE EDUCATION.

>> Is it okay for a property owner to tell guests that they can only use the front door to exit the owner’s home … and enforce that requirement?

I’m a bit of a devil’s advocate here. I don’t actually believe that property rights are absolute, or even natural. As far as I’m concerned, right to property is a creation of human society, and there’s no property in nature. So, the society can set limits on how the property may or may not be used, and this includes things like property taxes, eminent domain, and anti-discrimination laws (I’m not saying that any arbitrary restriction is valid, though – that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis).

Anyway, putting the absolute property rights hat back on, your example is not really very interesting. If someone sets rules on their property, and you knowingly violate those rules, this is trespass. And the remedy for trespassing for the owner is to order the trespasser to vacate; and the only valid reason to use force is to enforce that, rather than the rules themselves. Someone leaving from the back door – provided that it’s actually usable, and restriction of its use is just the owner’s whim – is thus not something that can be prevented by force.

Now, a more interesting case is that, say, as an owner, I tell the guests that they shouldn’t be breaking windows (though that is generally implied); and there is a fire that blocks the only exit, and people have to break through windows to escape. In that case, the owner cannot forcibly prevent property damage, as that would be interfering with the right-to-life. But he can still sue those people for property damage later.

Taking the hat off again, I think that a reasonable position is that the owner can ban guns on their property, but they are then liable for any harm that occurs that could have been prevented with a gun. In a similar vein, if your property doesn’t have any fire escape route, and you host a party, and there is a fire that blocks the main entry, you are liable for any damage resulting from that fire. But liability should only occur if the event happens, and otherwise the guests should exercise their choice to go or not go, given all the information about the venue.

you are so far out of whack Im not even going to reply to you anymore. you are probably very dangerous with a gun so just do yourself a favor and stay the hell off my property I’m done talking to you! You really do need professional help.

None of you addressed the inconsistency of your position: that you support an absolute right to life in some circumstances and other times you do not … which really means that you do not support an absolute right to life at all.

Instead, you sidestepped with a proclamation that guests have the option to not enter a property that forbids life. The devastating consequence of that position is that no one has an absolute right to life unless they are standing on property that they themselves own. I would hope that you can see how that could get really ugly.

One more thing.
We had a young man with points of view similiar to yours in a cpl class a while back. He was looking for any reason to do as he pleased , where he pleased with his gun. Even the attorney agreed that he should not be passed.
Your point of view is dangerous to responsible gun owners and carriers.
You are not forced to come to my home or anywhere else I own property therefore you right to carry ENDS at my property line as well as anyone else’s that wish to disallow all but invited guests with guns.

There is another dimension to this as well. We all operate under the nebulous “social contract”. That simply means that we all recognize that all of us are equally important and have unalienable rights. And if there is an apparent conflict of rights, there has to be some sort of sensible “give and take” that respects everyone’s inherent human dignity.

Consider some potential conflicts of rights:
(1) I want to stand at a certain spot on a public sidewalk and do so. Another person comes along and wants to stand at the exact same spot. We both have equal right to stand at that spot on the public sidewalk. Now what? Does that mean the second person can shove me out of the way to stand on that spot? After all, they have equal right to stand anywhere they want on a public sidewalk, right? Resolution: respect for human dignity and human life says the second person cannot toss me aside like a piece of trash. I was there first. If the second person can toss me aside, that means the second person is more important than I am, which they are NOT. Therefore the second person can stand on the public sidewalk next to me or wait until I leave to stand on my spot.
(2) I want to hold up a sign in front of City Hall to inform the public about destructive city policies. That means I can stand out in the middle of the road in front of City Hall and hold up my sign, right? After all, it is a public road and I have just as much right to that public space as anyone else, right? Resolution: respect for human dignity and human life says that I cannot toss aside all motorists like pieces of trash and halt traffic flow. People who want to travel on public roads are of equal importance to me. Therefore I can hold my sign next to the public road. People get to travel freely. I get to hold up my sign and inform the public.

Bringing all of this back to private property:
A private property owner that wants to ban guests from having firearms is banning self-defense and therefore our right to life. That is tossing aside guests like pieces of trash and denying their inherent human dignity. It is saying that the property owner’s life is superior to the guest’s life. This is obscene. Resolution: the property owner can manage, direct, and use their private property any way they want as long as their management, direction, and use does not endanger the life of their guests. This resolution respects the property owner’s human dignity (ownership of property) and the guest’s human dignity (right to self-defense).

There is a difference, to me, between private property and a business which deals with the public. If you own a business which accepts people from off the street every day, then you should have to obey the law, including license to carry. If you don’t want to do that, feel free to sell the business. You guys are talking about a private club with bylaws, etc.

Because sometimes various legal issues require delivery of mail with specific tracking, delivery and notification guarantees (court notices, jury summons etc), and so it is important that the government provides a service that ensures those. And once you have it, it might as well be used for other things involving mail delivery.

By the way, USPS is one of the few government agencies that is entirely self-supporting – it would have had a positive budget, if it didn’t have a unique requirement, even among public organizations, to completely pre-fund all retirement and healthcare expenses for all its new hires, imposed in it by Congress.

“delivery of mail with specific tracking, delivery and notification guarantees”

This service does not have to be performed by the state. A private business can provide such guarantees.

I don’t argue your point about their financials… but this is not relevant to the question. Our government should only do the things that we need them to do, and that is dammed little (small number of tasks I should clarify, but important ones). Protect the border. A few other things.

Delivering mail and packages? Good gravy, no.

This is how we end up with big government, we let them do this, and then that, and then another thing…

No. We need to eliminate entire departments in whole, and the post office is probably the most obvious and easiest one to remove. Hell, private organizations are already there and ready to provide the service immediately.

>> This service does not have to be performed by the state. A private business can provide such guarantees.

At best, it can claim that it provides such guarantees. But the legal system cannot rely on something that it cannot predict and control. Imagine how it would work if a private company failed to deliver the mail but recorded it as delivered, and it was court summons; and the court would then hold the person in contempt.

Basically, same fundamental reason why private police, private jails and private binding arbitration are abominations. Justice and due process cannot rely on private institutions if it is to be fair and impartial.

>> Our government should only do the things that we need them to do, and that is dammed little (small number of tasks I should clarify, but important ones). Protect the border. A few other things. Delivering mail and packages? Good gravy, no.

On the subject of what is and isn’t the appropriate function of the federal government, from a small government perspective, I think I’ll rather trust the Founders than you. And the Founders have emphatically believed that government should be in this business – so much so that USPS predates the Constitution, having been created by the Second Continental Congress. Furthermore, they have specifically put verbiage authorizing the federal government to run a post service into the Constitution when they wrote it, not even as an amendment; Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … To establish Post Offices and post Roads”. There are very few things that the feds do today that can boast such firm constitutional support.

Actually, I stand corrected. Upon reading the text of the law, it specifically states that no person can be convicted of an offense in a facility that doesn’t have the sign “posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility” – unless they can be proven to know about the restriction already. So, you might want to not reply to that other comment of mine…

“It increases the possibility of gun theft from post office parking lots…” I’nmnot so sure about that. My understanding is that you cannot possess a firearm in the parking lot either–which was the case you mentioned in your post. So if you carry, you have to park outside the parking lot, lock up your gun, and then enter federal property. Which seems pretty stupid, at least to the trial court. But the 10th disagreed.

You’re correct. The parking lot is still considered federal property, not just the area inside the doors. So to fully obey the law, you’re removing your gun and leaving it in the car, which is parked on or across the street, or in a neighboring parking lot.

In theory, firearms aren’t banned on all federal property, but only on facilities. For example, national parks are such property, but only the ranger buildings etc are facilities.

Facility is specifically defined thusly:

“The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.”

By any reasonable reading of this, the post office itself is a facility, but not its parking lot. Unfortunately, USPS – alone of all government departments – believes that the ban actually extends to parking lots. Worse yet, they have actually prosecuted people for this, and won:

In the past 6 months I have carried in 6 or 8 Natl Park Visitor centers between TX and CA, in my Sneaky Pete (which is not real sneaky, but concealed so as to not offer probable cause) and my gun has not yet gotten loose and shot anyone.

I consider it a stupid law, but it is still the law, and it has teeth insofar as the feds do. I wouldn’t publicly admit of breaking it if I were you, unless your intent is open civil resistance, and you intend to be arrested and want to argue 2A in court all the way to SCOTUS.

FWIW, the guy who got arrested for having a gun in his car parked next to the post office was convicted, and is now ineligible to own firearms.

Is the ban by law or policy? If by policy then the President has legitimate authority to use an executive order to change it but if it is by law then Congress would to repeal it unless you think it”s ok for the President to announce he won’t enforce a law you don’t like.

I guess it’s ok to be a lawless President when he is doing something you support. /sarc

I was thinking that exact same thing…Do we really need someone else who is going to rule by executive order? Hopefully, Trump or Cruz will get congress to pass/repeal laws, not use their pen on us like this D-head has.

All of this is why I seldom visit the USPO. They do not get my package business, and when I have something shipped to me I specify another carrier, don’t care if it costs more. UPS may put up a no gun sign, but it has no force of law here in Georgia, so even if they are in the wrong with the stupid sign there is zero chance it has any real downside for me. The USPO on the other hand can invoke the federal department of we will screw with the rest of your life.

I very rarely disarm when I go to the Post Office. I rarely even go to the PO now. For awhile I did leave my gun in the car. But deemed that unsafe for me and everyone else should it be stolen. I then decided to no longer use the PO.
What for?? Every thing I need can be gotten elsewhere. Stamps at the local food store. Mailing a package if I so chose. get a box from a UPS Store.
The Gubbermint wonders why the PO is operating at a lost???
Its their own fault. If Im to be a 2nd class citizen in the eyes of the PO. I say scewem and use some other service that doesn’t discriminate against me and my rights.

I haul mail for the USPS. The company I drive for has contracted with them for 60 plus years. Most of the the reason they are losing money is through bad financial practices and frankly the particular union they have. It has nothing to do with loss of business as they are shipping record packages.
The ban on any Postal Property is not posted on the distribution centers I go to either and I can tell you that security is slack with doors being propped open for anyone to enter without security badges etc.
Going postal was coined years ago when at the time a former employee committed one if the largest mass shootings heard of.
It is a criminal opportunity zone in the areas I work anyway. The ban serves no legitimate purpose today.

Around the corner from the (now defunct) Ardsley Range, there was a major Post Office. I would often stop by there and send out parcels before doing a little shootin’ That said, I always parked at a nearby strip mall lot, with everything in the trunk and walked next door. Seems inconvenient, but even having the guns in the trunk in a lot owned by the Post Office would be a violation, so I always made sure to park elsewhere.

Guilty as (not) charged. The only time I’m NOT armed (with something) is a cop station or a court house. And I do mail lots of packages for the wife’s internet business. Funny but the talk in the large Baptist church today was about Trump-AND it wasn’t good. Wife in Playboy and/is he really a Christian? Vote TED…

There is no basis in law for the regulation prohibiting firearms on “postal property.” BTW, the VA has the same regulation as to it’s parking, also with no basis in law.

The law prohibiting a “firearm or other dangerous weapon (knife with a blade more than 2 1/2 inches) in a Federal facility…” is 18 U.S. Code §930. But Sec. g(1) defines facility – “The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.”

It’s a basic tenet of federal law that a regulation cannot expand the law to cover more than the enabling statute, but that’s clearly what 39 CFR 232.1(l) does, “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.”

I don’t know what was argued at the 10th Circuit, but the Bondidy v. USPS opinion never discusses this discrepancy.

The good news is that §930(h) requires, “Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility…” I would presume if the post office wants to enforce the no gun ban, that would mean at the driveway entrance to the property and I have yet to see a “no gun” sign posted anywhere but on a post office door.

“We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and conclude that the regulation is
constitutional as to all USPS property at issue in this case, including the Avon Post Office
parking lot, because the Second Amendment right to bear arms has not been extended to
“government buildings.” Government buildings, in this context, includes the government
owned parking lot connected to the U.S. Post Office. Alternatively, even if we were to
conclude that the parking lot did not qualify as a “government building,” we would
uphold this regulation as constitutional as applied to the parking lot under independent
intermediate scrutiny.”

But not once in the opinion does the 10th Circuit discuss the fact that the regulation expands what Congress wrote in the statute. That’s the problem, not that the Court has jurisdiction for the appeal, but that the Post Office oversteps the authority it was given.

This is an interesting and enlightening discussion.
The company I drive for does not allow firearms in their trucks even though the law states that a truck with a sleeper on it becomes the residence of the individual driver and is therefore not subject to any legal issues as far as carrying the gun goes.
The two distribution centers I go to on a regular basis have no such signage regarding Firearms not permitted even at the one that has a security gate. It would be interesting to see what would happen in such an event that a gun was discovered but unless a search warrant was executed I can see how that would be very difficult unless of course someone decided to use it for illegal means and was caught. However me being the one that I am have no desire to be the one to actually test what would happen!

If I were you guys, I would not admit that you carry a firearm into a Post Office building at this time.
BIG NOTICE:
As a matter of fact not only is it illegal to carry a firearm into a Postal Building, it is illegal to even have a firearm in your vehicle while you are in the Post Office Parking lot and that ban is not just for Postal Employees.
The ban in on Postal Property and according to the Post Office THEY say that includes Parking Lots.

Although the Federal GFSZA does provide an exception for an individual licensed to carry a firearm, this exception only applies in the State that physically issued the permit.[1][2][3][7][13][16] Nearly all fifty States have provisions to issue concealed carry permits to citizens.[17] Most of these States also enter into reciprocity agreements with other States where each State agrees to recognize the other’s concealed carry permits.[17] Because the Federal GFSZA requires the permit be issued by the State which the school zone is in,[1][2][3] it is difficult for a permit holder to travel outside their State of issuance to a reciprocating State without violating the Federal GFSZA

and the United States Army Corps of Engineers should follow the legalizing in state parks

What pray tell does support 2A mean? Unless the dear leaders enact legislation that says Feds will withdrawal ALL state funding if they do not infringe in any way the right to keep and bear arms in public and private….it’s nothing more than get your vote yappin

I’d be for it, but it doesn’t seem to make much difference as people who conceal carry generally do it in places they’re not supposed to and… well, nobody knows which is the point of concealed carrying.

I’d much rather have the freedom that was taken from us 80+ years ago with repealing most, but not all, of the NFA. There’s nothing inherently more dangerous that a Short Barrel Rifle has opposed to a non SBR or a Short Barrel Shotgun has opposed to a non SBS. Suppressors are already gaining mainstream attraction for their ability to protect people’s hearing and we have congressmen sponsoring bills to make them a non-NFA item. I don’t care about machine guns and I don’t think the public would support making them non-NFA items. Besides, we’d have to repeal part of the NFA and FOPA to get them available again.

The rest of the NFA can stay, the parts that deal with destructive devices and chemical/biological weapons; that stuff is a common sense reform.

Other than NFA reforms, I want the next Republican president to try to get a law passed for stronger protections for people transporting their guns from state to state (basically tell the Northeast states and the District to screw themselves) and for a national reciprocity law.

Time to take concealed carry to the next level allowing carry at schools, military installations, across state lines, etc… and no cop or federal rifleman should ever be better armed than any other citizen can be.

As others have noticed, there are few, if any, post offices with gun ban signs at the entrances to the parking lots. The signs on/in Post Office buildings create an incentive for people to leave their personal defensive firearms in their vehicles in the parking lot.

Agreed, the postal CCW ban needs to go away. Hopefully if Trump or Cruz gets in, it will pave the way for this to happen.
First, I hope that Trump’s anti 2nd Amendment statements of the past stay in the past. As far as he and his son, I have not yet heard them speak about the real intent of the 2nd Amendment which was for the people to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. I have seen photos of his son posing with animals he has shot in Africa but nothing that has to do with the 2nd Amendment. Maybe they have mentioned tyranny, but all I’ve ever heard from Trump was about people defending themselves against criminals which you can legally do in most countries around the world with firearms and they have nothing close to the 2nd Amendment. The real intent of the 2nd Amendment is NOT mentioned on his Second Amendment Rights campaign page.
My main issue is with your statement “Mr. Trump has adopted an irreproachable Second Amendment platform” but that does not reflect what is on his website. For example, his campaign website states the following under Enforce The Laws On The Books:

“Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success…We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.”

Enforce the laws on the books??? Project Exile “a success”??? “We need too… expand programs like Project Exhile”??? Like all of the un-Constitutional laws such as section 922(r) from 27 C.F.R. § 478.39, which dictates that “no person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun” if the end product is a firearm that would otherwise be banned from importation under 925(d)(3)/Assault Weapon Import ban signed by President Bush the 1st.

I give this as just one example of “laws on the books” which are un-Constitutional as I can directly relate to the anti-2nd Amendment and NRA backed Project Exile which puts innocent gun owners in jail. Project Exile states that if a gun is used in a crime at the local level that the police report must go the BATFE for review to see if any federal laws were broken. Here is where Project Exile can put a gun owner in jail for NOTHING. A man goes shooting at a rock quarry where he has been shooting legally for years. One day, a policeman approaches the man who is plinking on the quarry property with his SKS rifle. The officer informs him that the quarry was purchased a month earlier and that the man is now trespassing. The man states that he did not notice the new “No Trespassing” sign on the property as he has been shooting there for years. The officer informs the man that he will be arrested for firing a gun on private property without permission which is a first degree misdemeanor in the state. The SKS rifle is confiscated and a report is filed. Under Project Exile, the police report must go to BATFE for review as a gun was involved in a crime. When BATFE reviews the report they ask to examine the SKS rifle. When they look at the rifle, they notice that it has a folding stock on it but no bayonet which leads them to believe that the Chinese SKS was imported after the “Assault Weapon” import ban of 1989 and after November 1990 which was the date for SKS being affected by 922 (r). The man is now charged with a federal felony for violating the “assault weapon” import ban because he was in possession of a legally imported rifle which was turned into an “assault weapon” with the addition of the folding stock. His 2nd Amendment is now taken away for life. This is pro-2nd Amendment???

You’ve touched on one of my major beefs with the NRA, at least as it was during the late 90s. I don’t know if they STILL use that line about “enforcing the laws already on the books” but that’s a goalpost that includes a bunch of laws that shouldn’t be on the books…and as more such laws are added, includes them as well.

Basically anyone who advocates this is saying they are fine with the status quo, because it is the status quo.

Trump? When has Trump ever been consistent on any point? WHEN? He’s been consistently INCONSISTENT. That leaves Senator Cruz who has a far better actual record and a far bigger stake in keeping his word. Cruz is the candidate endorsed by Gun Owners of America and we know how CONSISTENT they have always been.

Trump is the brass Trumpet that can (and does) gold plate himself and not much more.